Innovation policy mixes and implications on HEIs - emerging conclusions from the OECD innovation policy reviews Gernot Hutschenreiter Country Studies and Outlook Division Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry Regional and City Roundtable: Universities for Skills, Entrepreneurship & Growth OECD, Paris, 19-20 September 2012
What are OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy? Completed: Luxembourg, Switzerland, New Zealand, South Africa, Chile, Norway, China, Greece, Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Russian Federation, Peru, Slovenia In completion: Sweden, Southeast Asia, Vietnam In progress / under launch: Croatia, Colombia Scope: Comprehensive analysis of the national innovation system with special emphasis on the role of public policy Policy mix issues and industryscience relations are covered regularly See: www.oecd.org/sti/innovation/reviews
Policy mix: the concept Policy mix has become widely adopted as a concept due to Better appreciation and understanding of the interplay between policies (e.g., between / among framework policies (e.g. competition and immigration policy) and dedicated STI policies (e.g. tax incentives for employing for R&D personnel Greater need to ensure coherence over a widening innovation policy space Drive for increased efficiency fiscal constraints The policy mix has several dimensions, including desired outcomes target groups and instruments of policy intervention Often the use has been focused on the instrument mixes (although this reduces the concept s wider applicability) Policy mixes are often represented in a binary form, e.g. competitive versus non-competitive funding instruments
Stylised shifts in the innovation policy mix Broad policy approach Delivery Improving framework conditions Direct support Dedicated support (STI) policies Fiscal incentives (De-) centralisation Specificity Central government initiatives Generic initiatives Regional/local initiatives Specific/programmed initiatives Hierarchy Supply/demand orientation Funding mode Actors and interaction Top-down Supply-side/Sciencepush Institutional funding Single actor programmes Bottom-up Demand-side/Demand-pull Competitive funding mechanisms Multi-actor / co-operative programmes
The evolution of industry-science co-operation Many shifts in the policy mix have important direct or indirect implications for HEI In particular: Over the past 2+ decades there has been a clear shift in emphasis towards fostering co-operation between industry and HEIs (and PROs) This trend has translated in a shift in the policy mix in many countries Newly devised instruments have been spreading among advanced countries, and from there to countries behind the technological frontier Countries today employ a wide spectre of instruments/mechanisms to foster industry-science co-operation From ad-hoc, short-term, narrowly defined projects, sometimes with relatively modest technology content etc.... to long(er)-term, institutionalised, strategic co-operation with advanced research agendas
he shift to industry-science co-operation: implications for HEIs Various forms of instruments/programmes have evolved to support different types of co-operation From project-based, bottom-up to complex multi-actor, multi-annual programmes typically supporting institutionalised co-operation (top-down or bottom-up) - Centers of Competence and the like New generations of programmes emerge through a sequence of cooperation modes but different types of programmes often co-exist, based on a division of labour, often including regional HEIs / PROs Co-operation programmes trigger institutional reforms in HEIs: autonomy, complemented by more advanced monitoring / evaluation mechanisms; IPrelated arrangements, etc. The focus on industry-science cooperation affects HEI funding both directly and indirectly (knock-on effects; via entering institutional funding criteria) Potential pitfall: proliferation of models / programmes tested elsewhere into environments for which they are not (yet) suited
China s innovation policy: institutional reform and learning curve Source: OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: China.
An example from the GSM Story The GSM Story (Technopolis, 2008; part of the series of impact studies of Sweden s VINNOVA) focuses on longer-term interrelations between research / research policy and socio-economic development Impacts of co-operation / use of focusing devices Creation of one of the most advanced mobile telephone markets in the world Profound transformation of the leading enterprise, Ericsson embracing globalisation and market leadership with impacts up to this day Universities have significantly contributed to the success of industry but gained themselves in major ways The creation of a body of new knowledge (as captured by standard indicators), a massive build-up of competencies and specialised human resources; but above all through entering a new trajectory powered by positive feedback from co-operation with industry
Towards university-based, firm-centered innovation systems? % share of higher education in publicly performed R&D (2008) Public research-centered innovation system Firm-centered innovation system 100 90 Switzerland Denmark Universitycentered public research 80 70 60 Greece Turkey Canada Netherlands Portugal Norway Italy Chile Spain Australia Austria Sweden Ireland United Kingdom Belgium Finland 50 40 New Zealand Iceland Mexico Poland Hungary South Africa Slovak Republic France Germany Japan United States Korea Czech Republic Slovenia 30 China 20 10 Russian Federation Luxembourg 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % share of firms in total R&D spending (2008) Public labcentered public research In bold are countries that have been already subject of an OECD Review of Innovation Policy Source: OECD based on OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators (MSTI) database.
Thank you for your attention Gernot.Hutschenreiter@oecd.org Web resource www.oecd.org/sti/innovation/reviews